And that man would absolutely love it if Java had a type system closer to Hindley-Milner with type inference. But, given the reality of Java, generics become undesirably verbose.
A typical well written Haskell program has more type annotation than the same program written in Java. Not only that but because of type classes those annotations are even more verbose than an equivalent declaration in Java.
It's true that you can omit most of the type signatures and let the compiler figure it out but nobody really writes Haskell code that way if they want it to be comprehensible by human readers.
I've wondered about this. It seems common for OCaml code to only have the type annotations where necessary, but it's usually included in Haskell by convention.
